Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 12, 2023

Policarpo v. April Corp.

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:21-cv-04210
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Policarpo v. April Corp., Judge Parker granted more time for a settlement filing or discovery update and warned of possible sanctions.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, defendants, and their counsel were required to meet the April 19 filing deadline and were warned that continued noncompliance could result in sanctions.

What happened

Policarpo v. April Corp. concerns a case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement. They said they would file the required request for court approval of that settlement, but they did not meet the deadline.

The court had first required the settlement-approval filing by March 28, 2023, and later extended the deadline to April 7. The parties filed neither the settlement request nor a request for more time. The court also reminded them that all discovery was still due by April 21, 2023.

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted another extension through April 19, 2023. The parties were ordered to file either the settlement-approval request or an update about discovery. The court warned that continued failure to follow its orders could lead to sanctions, including monetary sanctions against the parties and their lawyers.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Policarpo v. April Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-04210
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Apr. 12, 2023

Background

Plaintiffs Raul Policarpo and Natalio Ceballos brought this action against April Corp., doing business as Terra Market, Blanca Gonzalez, and John Does #1-10. On March 6, 2023, the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement. Because the case required court review of the settlement, the parties represented that they would file a motion seeking approval by March 28, 2023. The court refers to that filing as a “Cheeks Motion,” citing Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.

The court had previously stated that the settlement-approval deadline did not change the existing deadline to complete discovery, which remained April 21, 2023. When the parties did not file the Cheeks Motion by March 28, the court extended the deadline to April 7 and instructed them to request a reasonable further extension if they were not ready. The parties filed neither the Cheeks Motion nor an extension request, and the docket remained silent.

Court’s Action

The court granted another extension of time, using the phrase “nunc pro tunc,” until April 19, 2023. By that date, the parties were required to file either the Cheeks Motion or an update on the status of discovery.

The court warned that continued failure to comply with court orders could result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions against the parties and their counsel. The order did not impose sanctions, decide whether to approve the settlement, or change the April 21 discovery-completion deadline.

Disposition and Classification

The court granted an extension of time and ordered an alternative filing by April 19, 2023. This is a procedural order because it addressed deadlines, settlement-approval procedures, and discovery status rather than deciding the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.